[Excelsior]

Let's break this down a little further...

(12-17-2012 11:13 AM)solo Wrote:  

I agree with this. While Athlone is right in theory,

Oh, I'm right in more than theory. Just give me a minute...

Quote:

today's women are helped so much by feminism, mis-directed socialism, demographics, obesity, technology and the media that incredibly, when she's done with the carousel she will still have suitors ready to marry her

Suitors she often won't actually be attracted to.

Remember: quality over quantity. These are women, not men. Merely having suitors is not a victory for a woman unless those suitors are of high quality.

You are certainly correct that most of the women in a nation like the USA will have plenty of suitors, regardless of their flaws. What matters is whether or not they actually want them.

If they're not attracted to them (and we know how western women feel about betas and lower-value men in general), then there is no actual victory there. They'll still be very unhappy, and they'll show that by hunting for more worthwhile dick in other places.

Quote:

and some of them will even be high value; rich, famous and good-looking.

The vast majority simply will not. In practice, very few of those men will possess even one of those qualities and those few will go to the slightly larger (but still extremely small) number of women who are able to follow the Kim Kardashian model I mentioned above (very rich + physically elite = able to overcome sordid past for a while at least).

For the other 99.9% of women, options are far less favorable. They are not chased by rich, famous, good-looking athletes like Kim Kardashian. They're chased by decent looking (sometimes downright unattractive), anonymous, sometimes financially stable (lawyers, doctors, and other white collar types) but often very boring/gameless/uninteresting betas who know only how to provide, not how to turn them on consistently.

You know the type of guy I'm talking about-the "nice guy" who checks off most of the boxes and can give her a good life on paper, but doesn't really get her wet at all? These are the men most willing to lock her up.

She will see higher value men, but they are a) taken or b) disinterest and/or unwilling to invest in her long term beyond more casual sex.

Quote:

Guys with game (and other attributes) stand the best chance of avoiding the fate of marrying a slut who will then get fat and divorce rape him.

Proving my point. These men are the most likely to avoid such sordid pasts in women...and they also happen to be the men those women are most turned on by.

No matter how you slice it, there is a price to pay.

[ghostdog]

I'm mostly a slut hater (mostly for their hypocrisy) but there's the occasional devil's advocate thought in my head like:

should a woman be shamed for doing something that's easy? people say a woman can get sex anytime she wants. Should the ease of something be judged in how it's rewarded? If a man has a mathematical abililty that comes naturally(genetically) and is really easy for him people usually still view that as hard work, even though just about all of our attributes are genetic. compare that to a stripper who monetizes her facial and body genetics.

A woman's ideal situation is either securing an alpha or getting the alpha seed with a beta provider. Everybody is selfish and just wants to spread their genes and nature is amoral. We tend to hate on spinsters on this forum, but if the only way to measure success is tangible progeny, then most single and childless men over 50 just as useless as childless and single women over 35, lesbians, etc. We just attach the value of nobleness and defiance to our course in life to rationalize it. hedonism is easy to promote while young, but being old and having no legacy is rough.

also, God is dead. I have nothing against those rare sluts who don't want to ever get wifed up and just want to experience orgasms.

[Anon-A-Moose]

(12-17-2012 04:58 PM)ghostdog Wrote:  

I'm mostly a slut hater (mostly for their hypocrisy) but there's the occasional devil's advocate thought in my head like:

should a woman be shamed for doing something that's easy? people say a woman can get sex anytime she wants. Should the ease of something be judged in how it's rewarded? If a man has a mathematical abililty that comes naturally(genetically) and is really easy for him people usually still view that as hard work, even though just about all of our attributes are genetic. compare that to a stripper who monetizes her facial and body genetics.

A woman's ideal situation is either securing an alpha or getting the alpha seed with a beta provider. Everybody is selfish and just wants to spread their genes and nature is amoral. We tend to hate on spinsters on this forum, but if the only way to measure success is tangible progeny, then most single and childless men over 50 just as useless as childless and single women over 35, lesbians, etc. We just attach the value of nobleness and defiance to our course in life to rationalize it. hedonism is easy to promote while young, but being old and having no legacy is rough.

also, God is dead. I have nothing against those rare sluts who don't want to ever get wifed up and just want to experience orgasms.

You raise a very interesting series of points. I'm of the belief that the concept of honor, deep-rooted and primal, is known only to men. But people are becoming much more like Pavlov's pets. Throw em a cookie every time they roll over, they'll roll over on command.

Maybe men will just get so pussified that they'll simply screen them out, anxious to fuck anything above that. Oh wait, I think that's starting to happen.

[Grit]

(12-17-2012 04:58 PM)ghostdog Wrote:  

I'm mostly a slut hater (mostly for their hypocrisy) but there's the occasional devil's advocate thought in my head like:

should a woman be shamed for doing something that's easy? people say a woman can get sex anytime she wants. Should the ease of something be judged in how it's rewarded? If a man has a mathematical abililty that comes naturally(genetically) and is really easy for him people usually still view that as hard work, even though just about all of our attributes are genetic. compare that to a stripper who monetizes her facial and body genetics.

A woman's ideal situation is either securing an alpha or getting the alpha seed with a beta provider. Everybody is selfish and just wants to spread their genes and nature is amoral. We tend to hate on spinsters on this forum, but if the only way to measure success is tangible progeny, then most single and childless men over 50 just as useless as childless and single women over 35, lesbians, etc. We just attach the value of nobleness and defiance to our course in life to rationalize it. hedonism is easy to promote while young, but being old and having no legacy is rough.

also, God is dead. I have nothing against those rare sluts who don't want to ever get wifed up and just want to experience orgasms.

Two flaws in your premises:

A man might be mathematically gifted, but that doesn't mean he automatically walks into the CEO position of a company. With no game, aggression, or extroversion, he could coast to his forties with no marked status increase. Compare that with a woman, who could be gifted with beauty enough to marry a celeb at age 20 and immediately assumes HIS status. Tabloids eat that shit up. Female sex status doesn't equal male sex status.

Second flaw: female potential ends around 30, with 90% of her eggs gone and her beauty rapidly aging. Male potential never ends. See: silvio burlusconi, or any male politician. I practically guarantee that any single man who can become a politician in his 50s immediately becomes an eligible bachelor'

[ghostdog]

(12-17-2012 07:05 PM)Grit Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 04:58 PM)ghostdog Wrote:  

I'm mostly a slut hater (mostly for their hypocrisy) but there's the occasional devil's advocate thought in my head like:

should a woman be shamed for doing something that's easy? people say a woman can get sex anytime she wants. Should the ease of something be judged in how it's rewarded? If a man has a mathematical abililty that comes naturally(genetically) and is really easy for him people usually still view that as hard work, even though just about all of our attributes are genetic. compare that to a stripper who monetizes her facial and body genetics.

A woman's ideal situation is either securing an alpha or getting the alpha seed with a beta provider. Everybody is selfish and just wants to spread their genes and nature is amoral. We tend to hate on spinsters on this forum, but if the only way to measure success is tangible progeny, then most single and childless men over 50 just as useless as childless and single women over 35, lesbians, etc. We just attach the value of nobleness and defiance to our course in life to rationalize it. hedonism is easy to promote while young, but being old and having no legacy is rough.

also, God is dead. I have nothing against those rare sluts who don't want to ever get wifed up and just want to experience orgasms.

Two flaws in your premises:

A man might be mathematically gifted, but that doesn't mean he automatically walks into the CEO position of a company. With no game, aggression, or extroversion, he could coast to his forties with no marked status increase. Compare that with a woman, who could be gifted with beauty enough to marry a celeb at age 20 and immediately assumes HIS status. Tabloids eat that shit up. Female sex status doesn't equal male sex status.

Second flaw: female potential ends around 30, with 90% of her eggs gone and her beauty rapidly aging. Male potential never ends. See: silvio burlusconi, or any male politician. I practically guarantee that any single man who can become a politician in his 50s immediately becomes an eligible bachelor'

A man's intelligence is mostly meant to be used to acquire reproductive success at the end of the day ( intelligence is mostly inherited genetically, as are personality traits), and a woman has looks to help her do that, and it's relatively easy. I see game as rehabilitation from feminization. Women want alpha seeds biologically. It makes sense. they want their offspring to have resources and be protected, and if they have sons they want them to have his father's traits so that they'll be good at seducing women in the future. having an omega son= having a gay son. Nature has an economy here. I never want to shame women for their lack of masculine attributes like intelligence or for using their looks to get ahead.

I don't blame women for not being gifted logical skills by evolution. I blame the dismal modern society on the "each man/woman for him/herself" culture that is the outcome of socialist principles and a capitalist economy going hand in hand, and the lack of evolutionary biology/evo psych teaching all around. Women aren't as smart as men. However, if a woman stays poor in this modern society she will be assumed to be a fast r-type breeder and it will be difficult for her to get wifed up.. that's why they model/become hooters waitresses to get money. those women actually have hints of awareness and intelligence (they know it's their LOOKS that matter), they just don't have the whole picture or future oriented thinking. They don't know that they're messing with fire (sacrificing Smv) by sleeping with their boss to get ahead. We are in a strange mix of k-type and r-type societies, which has people confused as to how have optimal genetic results and spending most of their lives fending for themselves rather than cooperating.

as for the "male wall" male testosterone starts to gradually go down after a peak at 35-44 or so. men have a prime too. there comes a point when they join the ranks of the excess population with 38 year old single female sales reps, gays over 50, lesbians, ugly women. if that 50 year old bachelor you speak of doesn't acquire a genetic legacy he loses. plain and simple. Potential is nothing. If you boast your potential without offspring that actually makes you more of an evolutionary loser because you're building up the necessary prelude to reproduction( like status) and then pissing it away. Evolution is strictly the audience here. You leave that framework and any lifepath could be justifiable. Most people are in-betweeners, pretending that their hedonism, feminism, and other abstractions are still compatible with the health of the species. Winning wars against individual sluts and hamsters won't get us closer to addressing the lack of philosophical consensus.

[Samseau]

Quote:

Evolution is strictly the audience here.

Evolution doesn't care if you reproduce. Nature is amoral and doesn't care about anything, and everything happens by chance.

I see a lot of guys who claim that having children and passing on your genes is super important. Bullshit.

The idea that you need to "fulfill your biological imperative" is as dogmatic and faith-based as believing in Zeus.

[ghostdog]

(12-17-2012 07:55 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:

Evolution is strictly the audience here.

Evolution doesn't care if you reproduce. Nature is amoral and doesn't care about anything, and everything happens by chance.

I see a lot of guys who claim that having children and passing on your genes is super important. Bullshit.

The idea that you need to "fulfill your biological imperative" is as dogmatic and faith-based as believing in Zeus.

What's the point of staying skinny and attractive if you're not going to have children? That is the endgame.
We hate fat women because they do not look like good vessels to ejaculate into. They show the most visual evidence of degradation. We also hate them because they're still competing. Despite their somewhat rejection of the species by messing with their pleasure/reward systems to maximize pleasure through food, they still naturally have ego and reproductive urges. However our hedonism isn't healthy either.

Humanity is lost. Either we turn to health as the new god or we watch the world burn.

[ElJefe]

(12-17-2012 08:05 PM)ghostdog Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 07:55 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:

Evolution is strictly the audience here.

Evolution doesn't care if you reproduce. Nature is amoral and doesn't care about anything, and everything happens by chance.

I see a lot of guys who claim that having children and passing on your genes is super important. Bullshit.

The idea that you need to "fulfill your biological imperative" is as dogmatic and faith-based as believing in Zeus.

What's the point of staying skinny and attractive if you're not going to have children? That is the endgame.
We hate fat women because they do not look like good vessels to ejaculate into. They show the most visual evidence of degradation. We also hate them because they're still competing. Despite their somewhat rejection of the species by messing with their pleasure/reward systems to maximize pleasure through food, they still naturally have ego and reproductive urges. However our hedonism isn't healthy either.

Humanity is lost. Either we turn to health as the new god or we watch the world burn.

hear hear!

[Excelsior]

(12-17-2012 07:55 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Evolution doesn't care if you reproduce.

Reproduction is one of the few things evolution does actually care about. Those who reproduce are the only ones who get a chance to have any kind of say in the direction evolution takes. They are the only ones who directly influence the biological nature and composition of those who will live long after we die. They are the only ones with a chance of having a part of what makes them (their genetic code) persist well after their death. The future belongs to them.

Quote:

Nature is amoral and doesn't care about anything, and everything happens by chance.

It is possible for one to be concerned about something and still maintain very little morality. The fact that nature is generally amoral does not preclude the importance of reproduction to the very existence of our species, or to nature itself.

Your second statement is just an exaggeration. There is no formula that defines the scope of all life. This does not mean that there are not certain trends and consistencies that can be predicted, exploited and acknowledged to impact our existence.

The very existence of game (designed to take advantage of said consistencies in male-female relationships in order to increase male sexual success) is a result of this reality. We are not all special snowflakes beholden to lucky charms-there are basic fundamental trends we cannot always overcome, and these can be predicted.

Quote:

I see a lot of guys who claim that having children and passing on your genes is super important. Bullshit.

It is pretty much the closest thing you can get to a single, definitive "point" to our existence. We are designed to ensure our continued existence as a species, and the same is true of all living things. If we fail en masse to respect this objective, we cease to exist.

From a strictly biological perspective, that is the first and foremost goal of living things. Humans are not exempt from this.

Quote:

The idea that you need to "fulfill your biological imperative" is as dogmatic and faith-based as believing in Zeus.

That idea is about as close to cold hard rationalism as you can get. It breaks the meaning of life down to a definitive core.

Your nihilism is all good and well (don't have kids if you do not want them), but it should not be applied broadly in an attempt to obtain greater justification. There is very little biological reason to back such anti-natalist sentiment.

[RawGod]

Many beta schlubs impregnate fat cows and have half a dozen prole spawn, thus ensuring their genetic legacy.

Many players ejaculate inside numerous 9s and 10s, but wear a condom every time and never pass on their genes.

There is no god, no-one keeping score, and even if you are Genghis Khan and pass on your genes to 10% of the human race, you're still dead.

Live life how you want to. Nobody cares except you.

[Samseau]

You guys are placing your values on nature. Nature doesn't care if you reproduce. If humanity went extinct in the next 1000 years, as billions of species have before us, the world would still be turning, new species would replace us, and nature still would not give a fuck.

The entire premise of natural selection and evolution is that nature is without purpose; Darwin's major intellectual breakthrough was eliminating teleology from biological study.

Before Darwin, people believed that an animal possessed a trait because it was designed to fulfill a specific purpose. This line of thinking was created by Aristotle in his work, On the Parts of Animals, which stated that something like a bee had a stinger in order to sting invaders.

Intuitively, Aristotle made sense. And Aristotle's influence on biological research persisted until Darwin came along, who traveled the world and realized that it would be impossible for animals to create traits they needed in order to fit into nature. Darwin saw that species were coming and going, and that different species adapted better to their environment than others.

Indeed, nature was so hopelessly complex Darwin concluded that animals developed their traits first, and either the traits helped the animals survive and reproduce, or they did not. Darwin destroyed Aristotle's influence on biology, although without Aristotle obviously there would have never been a Darwin.

Thus, the idea that we can find meaning in nature is 100% certified irrational bullshit, as nature is without meaning or purpose, and the animals that come to survive on planet earth do so due to happenstance.

[Samseau]

Now some people find the above view to be nihilistic, but that's not true either. Nihilism is the denial of truth. By stating the above with the belief that it is true, I am already not a nihilist.

Nihilism would say that there can never be any sort of purpose to the world, and that even Darwinism is bullshit because it still makes a claim that there is order in chaos. The nihilist would say we're just ascribing our limited worldview to nature, and that nature may indeed have a purpose we do not know or ever will know.

You may also say that by denying the importance of having children there is no point to existence, but this is also false and, historically speaking, most thinkers have realized that having children are not too important by itself nor is it the pinnacle of existence.

Indeed, some of the most moralistic men who ever existed have claimed it is better to be celibate than it is to have sex and children, so that way you can find higher meaning with God.

I see all too often in the manosphere the oft retreaded, seldom thought about, worldview that our genes are the only thing what matter because evolution says so... but this is wrong. Evolution, and the rest of science, is completely amoral and only tells us how things are, and not how they should be.

Thus if you want to ascribe morality to the world, you can only cite your own judgement as the source of morality, and not some impersonal force like nature.

[ghostdog]

(12-17-2012 10:37 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

You guys are placing your values on nature. Nature doesn't care if you reproduce. If humanity went extinct in the next 1000 years, as billions of species have before us, the world would still be turning, new species would replace us, and nature still would not give a fuck.

The entire premise of natural selection and evolution is that nature is without purpose; Darwin's major intellectual breakthrough was eliminating teleology from biological study.

Before Darwin, people believed that an animal possessed a trait because it was designed to fulfill a specific purpose. This line of thinking was created by Aristotle in his work, On the Parts of Animals, which stated that something like a bee had a stinger in order to sting invaders.

Intuitively, Aristotle made sense. And Aristotle's influence on biological research persisted until Darwin came along, who traveled the world and realized that it would be impossible for animals to create traits they needed in order to fit into nature. Darwin saw that species were coming and going, and that different species adapted better to their environment than others.

Indeed, nature was so hopelessly complex Darwin concluded that animals developed their traits first, and either the traits helped the animals survive and reproduce, or they did not. Darwin destroyed Aristotle's influence on biology, although without Aristotle obviously there would have never been a Darwin.

Thus, the idea that we can find meaning in nature is 100% certified irrational bullshit, as nature is without meaning or purpose, and the animals that come to survive on planet earth do so due to happenstance.

you do realize that if you take the stance, feminism, fat bitches, drug addicts, trannies are all acceptable. That's liberalism. Denying health and biology.

progeny is our closest estimation of good. You open your eyes every morning for the goal of breeding. Take that away and values can be all over the place. If you're in this species you either support the species and bear healthy offspring or you destroy yourself and exit. It's the fact that most people are in between that is causing the problems, and the liberals trying to pretend their whack versions of reality are not only real but completely healthy and compatible.

[ghostdog]

(12-17-2012 10:30 PM)RawGod Wrote:  

Many beta schlubs impregnate fat cows and have half a dozen prole spawn, thus ensuring their genetic legacy.

Many players ejaculate inside numerous 9s and 10s, but wear a condom every time and never pass on their genes.

There is no god, no-one keeping score, and even if you are Genghis Khan and pass on your genes to 10% of the human race, you're still dead.

Live life how you want to. Nobody cares except you.

Yeah if one of those beta shlubs got himself a fat chick who had decent bone structure and made some kids who turned out to look decent and invested in them, his wife becomes irrelevant because he has procreated and he will get grandchildren. Her fatness will just affect the degree of his orgasm, and obesity isn't genetic for most people.

Players busting in 9's and 10's are pretending to pass on their genes to keep from suicide.

"Live life how you want to" seems out of place in an anti-feminist forum.

[Samseau]

Quote:

you do realize that if you take the stance, feminism, fat bitches, drug addicts, trannies are all acceptable. That's liberalism. Denying health and biology.

No I'm not. The freaks you describe are unhealthy and live shitty lives. I completely ascribe to living a good life filled with virtue, but not because "nature told me to". Nature, and science, tells us nothing about what we should do, and the sooner you realize that the better you will be.

Read more:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

[solo]

deleted

[solo]

(12-17-2012 01:59 PM)Vicious Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 11:13 AM)solo Wrote:  

There are fundamental differences between men and women. Women can't procreate with more than one member of the opposite sex at the same time, unlike men. This biological fact tells me a lot.

Biological factors are irrelevant due to the widespread availability birth control. We have short circuited nature in this regard, birth control methods have been around in different forms for hundreds of years. It makes all arguments on the matter concerning procreation invalid.

Not if you believe that the way we are geared has psychological consequences. Like you say, birth control has been around for hundreds of years. Humans have been around and been molded by evolution for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years. We all agree that as men we are built to want to have sex with as many attractive girls as possible. But since women can only procreate with one man at a time they were historically (and still are to an extent) more careful about who they choose (=hypergamy) and look for protector and provider qualities in their man. At least in my mind, it is very plausible that when they step outside of this (due to birth control, feminism or what have you), something "ticks" in their brains and they become mentally instable. You cant beat nature. You get sick one way or another if you try.

I agree I can't prove this. But I can look around and see that girls who are promiscuous are much more mentally instable than other girls.
Then it becomes a chicken or egg discussion. But I personally think that the nature of women is at least partly influenced by their reproductive biology and they are not made for the same sexual behaviour as men.

[solo]

(12-17-2012 01:59 PM)Vicious Wrote:  

[quote]Quote:

For the record I think women should be able to do what they want but the idea that they can be promiscuous while retaining their sexual market value is nothing more than feminist propaganda which sadly even guys on here seem to have fallen for (don't feel bad, they had me at one time too). And this idea wouldn't be sustainable if it weren't for feminism and socialism.

This is a conclusion with no support in nature or history. In feudal Japan, some of the most desired women a man could have were geishas/courtesans. In the '60s (which so many guys here hold dear) Marilyn Monroe and Elizabeth Taylor were pogoing from dick to dick with no consequence to speak of while being considered as the most desirable women of their time.

And if we use examples from a certain Scandinavian country both you and I are familiar with... wow, I could go on forever!

Correct, I have no empirical evidence, only theories. But the theories hold up in my mind at least. There will always be exceptions. Feudal Japan lasted, what, 700 years? The Stone Age lasted many times more than that and had a much bigger impact on humans. And during the Stone Age, with constant threat of wars, diseases and famine I doubt the men tolerated their women screwing around much, getting pregnant with someone else's kid, adding to their worries. I could be wrong but my guess is the women were pretty much commodities half the time.

No argument regarding Sweden! Personally though, I think guys getting played by celebrities for a few months are betas. But I select girls for appearence and personality, not social status (though these attributes coincide often of course, but not always).

[solo]

(12-17-2012 01:59 PM)Vicious Wrote:  

[quote]Quote:

It's not hypocritical and I think it was basilransom who made the point that YES it's a double standard - naturally, since women and men are different - so you need double standards. This is also why you have men and women competing in different categories and with different world records at the Olympics, for instance. Yet you never hear feminists complaining about this, since it would mean the women would never win anything.

What does physical limitations in competitions have to do with anything? There's no governing body that formulates acceptable sexual behaviour. The closest you would get is actually laws, which does not differentiate between men and women in this regard.

Skywalker had written that it is hypocrisy for girls not to be like men. I was trying to make the point that since men and women differ in physical performance, it is not entirely unthinkable that they will differ in sexual behaviour too. At least it made sense to me at the time.

(12-17-2012 01:59 PM)Vicious Wrote:  

[quote]Quote:

I want to have sexual access to various girls and then maybe settle down with one non-slut for the same reason many guys want to have a girls that is 1 or 2 pints above them on the attractiveness scale. Is that also hypocrisy? Remember, both the physical attractiveness and sexual history of the girl plays a part in her sexual market value.

And here we arrive at what this is really about. Your ego.

I'm not saying that to mess with you. Rather it's a very western position (for many of us it comes with our upbringing) and perfectly understandable. I actually agree that some of the worst cum dumpsters disgust me, I will still bang them though. What I'm trying to point out however is how this attitude will do little but limit you. While it might be interesting to discuss these topics on a men's forum it will never be something that we will be able to voice publicly. If any of us tried we would find ourselves chastised by society at large. We can bitch and whine about this but the reality of the matter is that it's something that's not changing for the better. Thus we should put our energies into using this to our advantage. If you're not banging these sluts, great! More for me.

You're right it's about my ego. I have no problem admitting that. I think most guys are into game partially because of their ego. And don't worry, I appreciate your viewpoint. You're absolutely correct it does limit me. For the record, I've succumbed to some sluts myself, itäs just that I'm asking myself if it really isn't better to leave empty-handed sometimes.

Edit: sorry about the successive posts. I was trying to put it all into one post at first but it didn't turn out alright

[solo]

(12-17-2012 04:00 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

Let's break this down a little further...

(12-17-2012 11:13 AM)solo Wrote:  

I agree with this. While Athlone is right in theory,

Oh, I'm right in more than theory. Just give me a minute...

Quote:

today's women are helped so much by feminism, mis-directed socialism, demographics, obesity, technology and the media that incredibly, when she's done with the carousel she will still have suitors ready to marry her

Suitors she often won't actually be attracted to.

Remember: quality over quantity. These are women, not men. Merely having suitors is not a victory for a woman unless those suitors are of high quality.

You are certainly correct that most of the women in a nation like the USA will have plenty of suitors, regardless of their flaws. What matters is whether or not they actually want them.

If they're not attracted to them (and we know how western women feel about betas and lower-value men in general), then there is no actual victory there. They'll still be very unhappy, and they'll show that by hunting for more worthwhile dick in other places.

Quote:

and some of them will even be high value; rich, famous and good-looking.

The vast majority simply will not. In practice, very few of those men will possess even one of those qualities and those few will go to the slightly larger (but still extremely small) number of women who are able to follow the Kim Kardashian model I mentioned above (very rich + physically elite = able to overcome sordid past for a while at least).

For the other 99.9% of women, options are far less favorable. They are not chased by rich, famous, good-looking athletes like Kim Kardashian. They're chased by decent looking (sometimes downright unattractive), anonymous, sometimes financially stable (lawyers, doctors, and other white collar types) but often very boring/gameless/uninteresting betas who know only how to provide, not how to turn them on consistently.

You know the type of guy I'm talking about-the "nice guy" who checks off most of the boxes and can give her a good life on paper, but doesn't really get her wet at all? These are the men most willing to lock her up.

She will see higher value men, but they are a) taken or b) disinterest and/or unwilling to invest in her long term beyond more casual sex.

Quote:

Guys with game (and other attributes) stand the best chance of avoiding the fate of marrying a slut who will then get fat and divorce rape him.

Proving my point. These men are the most likely to avoid such sordid pasts in women...and they also happen to be the men those women are most turned on by.

No matter how you slice it, there is a price to pay.

You've made some good points. I guess my perspective was that for the carousel-riders, they *should* be getting nothing else other than the betas of betas. But I've seen plenty of carousel-riders getting decent guys. Though you're right they are not the men of their dreams, but still far better than they would have gotten in the "State of nature".

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Athlone Wrote:

For the other 99.9% of women, options are far less favorable. They are not chased by rich, famous, good-looking athletes like Kim Kardashian. They're chased by decent looking (sometimes downright unattractive), anonymous, sometimes financially stable (lawyers, doctors, and other white collar types) but often very boring/gameless/uninteresting betas who know only how to provide, not how to turn them on consistently.

You know the type of guy I'm talking about-the "nice guy" who checks off most of the boxes and can give her a good life on paper, but doesn't really get her wet at all? These are the men most willing to lock her up.

She will see higher value men, but they are a) taken or b) disinterest and/or unwilling to invest in her long term beyond more casual sex.

While I generally agree with Athlone about actions having consequences, I am skeptical about the point that says used-up women are punished by not being attracted to their Beta suitors. No, they are not. But in return, they get the ability to milk a lot of money, divorce-rape them from them and still have flings with Alphas (who turns down freely offered casual sex unless the woman is really ugly?). It might still be an empty existence, but this is a huge compensation that feminism has manipulated into existence in the form of various unjust laws and interpretations of laws.

Imagine a man who is able to attract only 300+ lb. women, but is given the ability to freely divorce said women, take their money and use it to bang prostitutes. Would you call it a bad deal? I don't think so.

[Excelsior]

(12-17-2012 10:37 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

You guys are placing your values on nature.

Not quite.

Quote:

Nature doesn't care if you reproduce. If humanity went extinct in the next 1000 years, as billions of species have before us, the world would still be turning, new species would replace us, and nature still would not give a fuck.

Sure.

That doesn't change that fact that those who reproduce still force the hand of evolution by influencing the genetic character/composition of future generations. That is as close as any individual being can get to directly influencing nature in some significant way.

The fact that there would be no feel-good memorial service in the event of failure doesn't render the act meaningless or imply that it doesn't really matter. The fact that said reproduction has an undeniable (and unavoidable) impact on the character/composition of nature is evidence enough of some significance.

Nature doesn't have to coddle us for our reproduction to actually matter in the grand scheme of things.

Furthermore, the failure of one species may indeed be insignificant. The failure of many can create serious issues. This again implies the significance of reproduction, if not on a species-specific level.

Quote:

The entire premise of natural selection and evolution is that nature is without purpose;

Persistence is the purpose. Adaptation and reproduction both serve this end-to keep the species alive across time, regardless of the environmental challenges faced. Those who fail in either endeavor cease to persist.

[Excelsior]

(12-17-2012 10:30 PM)RawGod Wrote:  

Many beta schlubs impregnate fat cows and have half a dozen prole spawn, thus ensuring their genetic legacy.

Many players ejaculate inside numerous 9s and 10s, but wear a condom every time and never pass on their genes.

One is a genetic winner, the other a loser. I'll explain.

In this scenario we have two groups. Group 1 consists of a mass of genetically unremarkable beta schlubs and their equally unremarkable mates. Group 2 consists of genetically remarkable (very handsome, athletic, charming, etc) alpha males and their equally remarkable mates.

Group 1 reproduces well above replacement level (let's say 3 children per woman), and Group 2 reproduces far below it (average of just under 1 child per woman for the entire group).

What has happened here? We must analyze short-term vs. long-term consequences.

In the short term, Group 2 seems to have won. The players in this group had much more fun with fewer responsibilities, and they had higher quality sex with much hotter women.

It is in the long-term, however, that we begin to see a problem for Group 2. Their individual lives are quite pleasurable now, but they have made no real contribution to the next generation. They have no real control over that coming generation's outlook on life (few children to teach/influence) or on that generation's genetic nature (few children carrying their genetic code into the future).

The very things that make the individuals in Group 2 awesome are put in serious danger by Group 2's own passive attitude toward reproduction. The genetic components that create their high quality (physical appearance, health, intelligence to some degree, etc, etc) are not made available to the next generation in significant numbers. The individuals who come into the next generation having inherited them will be fewer in number than those with those traits (members of Group 2) who pass away. The cultural components of their quality (ex: their outlook on life) are also not passed on to the extent that they could be.

This creates the very real risk that the next generation could see fewer "Group 2 types" within its ranks than it otherwise would. They'll always be there, but there won't be quite as many.

What about Group 1? In the short term, they certainly lost. Children require a sacrifice of some of the more ostensibly pleasurable experiences enjoyed by those in Group 2. In the long term, however, they most certainly gain the upper hand by giving themselves stewardship over the next generation.

Group 1 has now ensured that the next generation will inherit their genetic traits to a much greater extent than they will inherit those of Group 2. They also ensure that they will get first dibs in determining the outlook of that generation, because they will be the ones raising and educating them first. Group 1 has put itself in the genetic and cultural driving seat-they are the only ones with a relatively certain chance at all of deeply and directly impacting the future of humanity after they die.

Quote:

There is no god, no-one keeping score, and even if you are Genghis Khan and pass on your genes to 10% of the human race, you're still dead.

This is a very individualistic point-of-view, and not an uncommon one (it is a product of western civilization and quite normal there). The self is all-important, and in the absence of the self there is viewed to be no great significance.

It is when you begin to overlook this view and search beyond the self that you see the fallacy here, however.

You are your genetic code-your DNA is what, in combination, makes that thing called you, and most of the assorted traits that come with that. It is also unique to you (making us all "special snowflakes" in that one sense).

Humans, like all living things, are not immortal. We cannot really persist as a whole beyond a certain time frame. We can, however, ensure that a part of us continues to exist long after we die. We do that by reproducing.

Each child carries a piece of that unique code that makes us who/what we are. Each child carries a part of our self into the future, and each child in turn can pass parts of that self to the generations beyond him/her. This is as close to immortality as any human gets-you are dead, but the parts that make you continue to live.

Genghis Khan's whole is gone-the specific combination of DNA that made his self no longer exists. But pieces of that unique blend do remain, carried throughout the world by millions of his descendants. Many parts of the blend that made him what he was are still alive today, making many modern people what they are and influencing who they become (as they did him when he was alive).

In a sense, Genghis Khan is still here-his whole is dead, but his biological essence still exists, and is embodied in his descendants who continue to carry it and pass it on to future generations.

Those who choose not to reproduce truly disappear after their death-the unique genetic blue print they carried has absolutely no chance of persisting beyond them. No future individuals will carry those unique pieces ever again.

Those who do reproduce allow important pieces of their blueprints a chance to persist for many generations beyond their death, and in doing so create the opportunity to transcend the death of the "self" and persist in some way well into the future. They are the only ones who can directly touch the future.

Quote:

Live life how you want to. Nobody cares except you.

There's no need for those who truly do not wish to reproduce to do so-they absolutely should not have kids if they do not want to.

To deny the significance of procreation in service of this viewpoint is to engage in fallacy, however. You can live life as you wish, but this does not mean that those living contrarily are not doing something significant.

[Excelsior]

(12-18-2012 04:37 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

While I generally agree with Athlone about actions having consequences, I am skeptical about the point that says used-up women are punished by not being attracted to their Beta suitors. No, they are not. But in return, they get the ability to milk a lot of money, divorce-rape them from them and still have flings with Alphas (who turns down freely offered casual sex unless the woman is really ugly?). It might still be an empty existence, but this is a huge compensation that feminism has manipulated into existence in the form of various unjust laws and interpretations of laws.

You can certainly argue that they do not lose as much as they should or could in other circumstances, and you'd be correct.

The point is that they're still losing. Most women consider a lifetime of beta a very serious downside. What we see looks like an okay deal to us, but we're thinking like men. To women (who generally hate betas and want much more than they can ever offer), that's a bad deal. Not as bad as it could be, but still pretty bad. They can rationalize and compensate, but many (I suspect most) are never truly happy with that outcome.

Quote:

Imagine a man who is able to attract only 300+ lb. women, but is given the ability to freely divorce said women, take their money and use it to bang prostitutes. Would you call it a bad deal? I don't think so.

I do, and I think he would too.

[RawGod]

You certainly write at length, Athlone, and I have a terrible habit of never devoting more than a minute to a forum post, so I'm sure I can't compete.

I think you missed Samseau's point, though, about Darwinism and teleology. We can't derive meaning from the direction of nature. What survives and reproduces simply survives and reproduces. This has no inherent value or meaning other than what we give it. I think your use of the terms "genetic winners" and "genetic losers" is a red herring as it seems designed to be conflated with one's personal sense of worth. No-one wants to be branded a loser, right?

As the writer of Ecclesiastes (reputedly King Solomon, with his harem of 1000) said, the battle is not to the swift and the race is not to the swift, but time and chance happens to them all. We don't know what our genetic legacy will be, or our legacy in the realm of ideas. As I said, we'll be dead and derive no benefit. I don't give a damn if by spreading my seed I influence future evolution. Frankly, I don't give a damn if I found a new philosophy which changes the course of history like Lao Tzu or Marx either.

Mozart had six or eight kids, two survived to adulthood and neither of them reproduced. So there's no more Mozart genes. His music lives "forever" or until the next Ice Age maybe, but so what? He might have traded that fame in order to live past 35 or have grandkids, but none of us even have the power to make such bargains. If that makes me an individualist, I'm OK with that.

Each of us only has the present. The playboy who uses Durex scrupulously wouldn't be more of a winner if he got drunk and knocked up a broad here and there. Unless he considered himself more of a winner.

What our egos are invested in, however, is competition with others (other males, in the main, for men like us). We do consider ourselves losers if we fail to gain the resources and attractiveness to mate with attractive women. But with the freedom given by our social structure and modern technology, we no longer have to allow the final step of letting the sperm unite with the egg. So for me, I can rest easier if I'm mating with hot chicks on occasion, and I don't need the "validation" of actual offspring. Maybe I'm a slave to lust or ego, but that's OK with me. We're players, right? That means we know the rules of the game and in full consciousness we take our places and do our best until the whistle blows, after which, it's over.